You guys are just sore losers. Obama won like it or not. If it were done all over again he would win again today. Why? Because he is always two steps ahead of the compitition. He knows their moves long before they realize he is on to them. That's why he always wins. Republicans have no viable contenders for the White House. Face it!

Obama is nothing more than a social experiment. How many times am I going to have to point that out????He is always two steps ahead of the competition? WHAT competition? He didn't know his tail from thrid base when he got elected the first time and he STILL won. He didn't have viable competition and that was by design. Obama won the presidency just like he "won" the Nobel Prize for Peace. It was handed to him for doing nothing but showing up. Now! YOU need to face THAT.

Median family income under Bush II went from $50k to $56k while he was in office.

Median family income has gone from $56k under Obama to what it is today,$50.

Obama has wiped out every improvement Bush made for the average worker.

Somebody should tell the economists that. All recognized economists say it dropped.

But don't take my word for it.

Here are the facts about middle class incomes in the Bush years:

For the first time since at least World War II, middle-class families finished the first decade of the 21st century poorer and with lower incomes than they had 10 years earlier.... according to a study out Wednesday by the Pew Research Center's Social and Demographic Trends project.... Median household income dropped nearly $3,500 for a three-person middle-class household, to $69,487 a year, after adjusting for inflation, the Pew study said. The median household's net worth dropped 28% to $93,150. Incomes have dropped since 2000,..."That the middle class always enjoys a rising standard of living is part of America's sense of itself, and it has always been true — until now," Taylor said in an interview, describing the 2000s as a "lost decade" for the middle class.... The middle class grew smaller, poorer and more pessimistic during the decade, Pew said after analyzing both its own polling data and a raft of government and private economic reports. The results show even a weakening of Americans' traditional faith that their children will be better off than their parents...

<quoted text>Somebody should tell the economists that. All recognized economists say it dropped.

But don't take my word for it.

Here are the facts about middle class incomes in the Bush years:

For the first time since at least World War II, middle-class families finished the first decade of the 21st century poorer and with lower incomes than they had 10 years earlier.... according to a study out Wednesday by the Pew Research Center's Social and Demographic Trends project.... Median household income dropped nearly $3,500 for a three-person middle-class household, to $69,487 a year, after adjusting for inflation, the Pew study said. The median household's net worth dropped 28% to $93,150. Incomes have dropped since 2000,..."That the middle class always enjoys a rising standard of living is part of America's sense of itself, and it has always been true â until now," Taylor said in an interview, describing the 2000s as a "lost decade" for the middle class.... The middle class grew smaller, poorer and more pessimistic during the decade, Pew said after analyzing both its own polling data and a raft of government and private economic reports. The results show even a weakening of Americans' traditional faith that their children will be better off than their parents...

Bush's was the worst eight-year economic record of any modern president.... by 2007 the U.S. reached levels of income inequality not since 1929. And now, it turns out, Americans' incomes dropped ominously after the tax cuts Bush bragged "meant people had more money in their pocket."

... Just days after the Census Bureau reported a jump in poverty during even before the start of the December 2007 Bush recession, Johnston reported, "Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels."

... Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell.

Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

... And to be sure, the Bush tax cuts which have already drained the Treasury of $2.3 trillion were a major contributor to the record U.S. income gap:

In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more...

One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration.

Right Wingers love to rewrite history to wipe out the memories of their repeated debacles - sadly - they usually succeed in getting us to forget.

Bush's was the worst eight-year economic record of any modern president.... by 2007 the U.S. reached levels of income inequality not since 1929. And now, it turns out, Americans' incomes dropped ominously after the tax cuts Bush bragged "meant people had more money in their pocket."

Average incomes fell.

Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Right Wingers love to rewrite history to wipe out the memories of their repeated debacles - sadly - they usually succeed in getting us to forget.

Need more proof ?

Closing The Book On The Bush LegacyRONALD BROWNSTEINSEP 11 2009, 10:41 AM ET

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially...

... Consider first the median income.--- When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).- When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms

- The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below),

... Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak.

- When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty.

- When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.)

Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The story is similar again for access to health care.

- When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million.

- By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million.

- When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent;

- Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

The fact is that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan.

The wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

<quoted text>Obama is nothing more than a social experiment. How many times am I going to have to point that out????He is always two steps ahead of the competition? WHAT competition? He didn't know his tail from thrid base when he got elected the first time and he STILL won. He didn't have viable competition and that was by design.Obama won the presidency just like he "won" the Nobel Prize for Peace. It was handed to him for doing nothing but showing up. Now! YOU need to face THAT.

One thing I agree with you on is the competition. What competition? The GOP has none like I said. Thanks for agreeing. Obama is doing a great job....admit it!

<quoted text>Undoubtedly, the conservatives didn't show up to vote because of who was nominated PLUS Obama didn't win by a landslide, so MOST of the nation???? Ummmm....NO. You just keep living in your "Obama is going to help me" world. Brace yourself. Nah....don't even think about it. Just let it happen.

Again, don't let the facts muddle whats left of your mind. Obama had more votes cast for him than any candidate in HISTORY in the last election. The majority is not the most, how convient for you. Trying to back up you warped views is a chore a will admit. But you also put all the blame for things on one man, ignorning the hundreds in the congress sitting on their hands only concered with what the folks back home think of them next election cycle. As for Obama helping me, I don't think anyone can help me after what Bushy did to this country. Don't see or hear much from him,can't really blame him for laying low in Texas, even he knows what he did.

<quoted text>Keep telling yourself that.Those of us paying the AMT always love to hear from Right Wingers how "they" support the country, and those if us writing the checks are selfish for even asking them to throw their money in the pot.The biggest contribution to the tax base Right Wingers provide is when they're forced to pay a gasoline tax to drive to their rallies, where they whine like little babies that someone wants them to pay taxes or pull their own weight.Right Wingers support their country- as long as they aren't required to pay their share or actually fight in their idiotic wars.You know, maybe Right Wingers will show us all how they support personal responsibility - by buying medical- insurance instead of making me pay their medical bills - hey, it's only for a few years - until they get their government Social Security checks and their government medical care, and their government prescription drugs.Wait, they're Right Wingers - they only demand support from the government - they never actually contribute to the cause.

<quoted text>Here's a different source - same facts:September 27, 2010 01:00 PMAmericans' Incomes Sank After Bush Tax CutsBush's was the worst eight-year economic record of any modern president.... by 2007 the U.S. reached levels of income inequality not since 1929. And now, it turns out, Americans' incomes dropped ominously after the tax cuts Bush bragged "meant people had more money in their pocket."... Just days after the Census Bureau reported a jump in poverty during even before the start of the December 2007 Bush recession, Johnston reported, "Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels."... Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.Average incomes fell.Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.... And to be sure, the Bush tax cuts which have already drained the Treasury of $2.3 trillion were a major contributor to the record U.S. income gap:In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more...One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration.Right Wingers love to rewrite history to wipe out the memories of their repeated debacles - sadly - they usually succeed in getting us to forget.

RONALD BROWNSTEINSEP, a man after the grail.Like you, full of words where a picture is worth a thousand words.

<quoted text>Gee, I wonder what happened at the end of 2008, and who was responsible for it happening?It must be Obama's fault, because the Republicans handed over a nice pristine perfectly operating country and economy to him, right?Right?

<quoted text>You are leaving because you are beat. You have nothing. A more intelligent topix board? You better get some help. You have NOTHING to back up your ridiculous posts. You are going to pay big time for voting for that freedom destroying maniac. I would be rife with glee except your extreme stupidity is going to hurt us all.

No,I'm glad we all defeated your romney freak. You lost and can't get over it. Now to all those 67% non-republicans out there, this president with our support should tax the hell out of all those Iraq and bush supporters. We kept them from the Whitehouse( Thank You Independents)Now the truth is that bush should of had his evil brains blowm out in front of all of us on National TV.

<quoted text>No,I'm glad we all defeated your romney freak. You lost and can't get over it. Now to all those 67% non-republicans out there, this president with our support should tax the hell out of all those Iraq and bush supporters. We kept them from the Whitehouse( Thank You Independents)Now the truth is that bush should of had his evil brains blowm out in front of all of us on National TV.

Bush wasn't EVIL, per se. He was dumb as a box of rocks.(Seems that is a requirement for Texas Governers..) Dick Cheney and other evil men used that massive stupidity to their advantage.

<quoted text>Need more proof ?Closing The Book On The Bush LegacyRONALD BROWNSTEINSEP 11 2009, 10:41 AM ETThursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially...... Consider first the median income.--- When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).- When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms- The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below),... Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak.- When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty.- When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.)Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.The story is similar again for access to health care.- When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million.- By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million.- When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent;- Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent.So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.The fact is that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan.The wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

What we ALL need from you is a LINK(s) to your sources. You type or cut and paste all of this, but obviously you DON'T WANT to post the links. Why is that? NONE of you libs want to post links. It certainly would save you some time. Perhaps, like chickenbutt, you just pick and choose SECTIONS that support YOUR agenda. Post your LINKS. USA Today? Reuters? What?

<quoted text>One thing I agree with you on is the competition. What competition? The GOP has none like I said. Thanks for agreeing. Obama is doing a great job....admit it!

Obama is a party-made clown that was elected because he is black. Nothing else. No other reason. A white democrat with essentially NO governmental experience would have NEVER won. Probably would have never even gotten nominated. Obama is not leading this country and is enjoying the perks and the worship(He is a MAJOR narcissist.) that he is STILL receiving from SOME of his minions. He certainly hasn't received the Obama staring worship that he received the first time he ran. If the republicans had run a viable candidate this time, Obama would have had his a$$ handed to him. No doubt about it.

<quoted text>Again, don't let the facts muddle whats left of your mind. Obama had more votes cast for him than any candidate in HISTORY in the last election. The majority is not the most, how convient for you. Trying to back up you warped views is a chore a will admit. But you also put all the blame for things on one man, ignorning the hundreds in the congress sitting on their hands only concered with what the folks back home think of them next election cycle. As for Obama helping me, I don't think anyone can help me after what Bushy did to this country. Don't see or hear much from him,can't really blame him for laying low in Texas, even he knows what he did.

Obama didn't win by a landslide. It doesn't matter that he received more votes than any candidate in history. That doesn't mean he won by a landslide. I'm sure you don't get that. You have to consider the number of votes his opponent received. Do you get it now? You libs have come on Topix a couple of times claiming landslide and have gotten slammed with the truth every time. Perhaps someone else will take the time to explain that ALL OVER AGAIN to you. I'm worn out with it. The libs don't want to hear it.

You sentence about Obama not helping you. GLAD YOU AGREE. The fact that you are blaming it on Bush is EXACLY WHY you will NEVER see the truth. Obama is not EVER going to help you.

My guess is that Bush determined that if he kept quiet, Obama would show his true colors and he IS EXACTLY RIGHT. So, your thinking that Bush is hiding out, what a laugh! Why don't you google it and see what Bush has been up to. I know at least one thing, but I'll let you discover that.

Before you claim something as fact, perhaps you should first UNDERSTAND what a fact is. Your LACK of understanding MUDDLES your EMPTY head.

<quoted text>Gee, I wonder what happened at the end of 2008, and who was responsible for it happening?It must be Obama's fault, because the Republicans handed over a nice pristine perfectly operating country and economy to him, right?Right?

Wonder who held congress during Bush's last two years? Democrats? YEP!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.